[os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

[David Tondreau]

For what its worth, we started a new area in piccolo called "community" 
when we released the empire source. Empire is located at:

ingres!community!empire

You may want to consider that namespace...

David


On 05/22/2008 10:17 AM, Bruce A. Lunsford wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me, particularly if the syncing of piccolo-opensrc and 
> svn is automated, which it seems like it could be. One other advantage 
> is that we don’t lose the history in piccolo by a 1-time switchover to 
> svn (or alternatively have to come up with a way to get the history 
> migrated to svn). One downside is that I was really enjoying the 
> under-10-minute refresh of an entire source build area using svn as 
> opposed to 8 hours or so with piccolo (which is why “p need” will 
> continue to be the favored approach with piccolo versus blowing away a 
> build area and starting from scratch).
>
> From the perspective of EDBC, this approach also helps because the 
> EDBC server code is now at the point of being put into piccolo. This 
> was never possible before because of the lack of a piccolo mainframe 
> client, which was recently completed. Moving to another CM system 
> would have meant porting another CM client to the mainframe (or 
> sticking with piccolo).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com 
> [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] *On Behalf 
> Of *Alex Hanshaw
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:49 AM
> *To:* opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
> *Cc:* David Reed; Robert Kibble
> *Subject:* [os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo
>
> Hi all
>
> Robert Kibble today suggested a rather neat solution to our svn and 
> piccolo dilemma.
>
> The idea is that we create a piccolo branch off of main that is 
> identical and kept in tight lock step with
>
> the svn repository.
>
> Every submission in the svn repository could then be replicated in the 
> piccolo-opensrc branch with a file
>
> copy of the affected files. No need to merge difs.
>
> Every change in the svn repository could then be easily integrated 
> into main through the use of an ineed against
>
> the piccolo-opensrc branch.
>
> Any change in main that we wished to push through into the svn 
> repository could be done by locking the affected
>
> files in the svn repository at head rev, crossing the change from main 
> into the piccolo-opensrc branch (identical
>
> at head rev to svn) and then whole file copy the piccolo-opensrc files 
> to the svn repository for submission.
>
> By forcing a tight lockstep of the svn repository and the 
> piccolo-opensrc branch replicating the changes between
>
> the two repositories would be as simple as copying files.
>
> If we adopt this approach:
>
> 1) We have zero disruption to our paying customers.
>
> 2) We can provide a community codeline using svn.
>
> 3) We can easily pull changes between the community repository and our 
> piccolo repository.
>
> 4) No need to rewrite existing scripts and procedures built on and 
> around piccolo.
>
> 5) Significantly reduced svn training costs.
>
> 6) Ingres staff wanting to contribute to the community edition can 
> working in svn or piccolo (removes the barrier of not knowing svn).
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Regards
>
> Alex
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensource-infrastructure mailing list
> opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
> http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
>